THE REPUBLIC vs. PAUL LIST AND 3 ORS , EX PARTE ANGELA DIALA LIST [2023]DLHC16321

Date	2023-09-22
Suit No.	SUIT NO. CR/0393/2022
Citation No.	[2023]DLHC16321

HIS LORDSHIP FRANCIS OBIRI J.

RICHMOND ADODOADJI HOLDING BRIEF FOR ISRAEL ACKAH FOR THE 1ST 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/ APPLICANTS

KWAME BOAFO AKUFFO FOR THE 4TH RESPONDENT

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT ABSENT

[2023]DLHC16321
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >THE
REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>PAUL
LIST AND 3 ORS<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/APPLICANTS)<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE ANGELA DIALA LIST<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

SUIT
NO. CR/0393/2022&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 22ND&nbsp;SEPTEMBER 2023<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>RICHMOND ADODOADJI HOLDING BRIEF FOR ISRAEL ACKAH FOR
THE 1ST 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/
APPLICANTS<o:p></o:p>KWAME BOAFO AKUFFO FOR THE 4TH RESPONDENT <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>&nbsp;<div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>I have listened to the
submission by counsel for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd
Respondents/Appellants/Applicants (hereinafter called the Applicants) praying
the court to suspend the sentence of each of the Applicants dated 20th
July, 2023 pending the determination of their appeal before the Court of Appeal.<o:p></o:p>I have gone through the
documents in this application which was filed on 6th September 2023.
The motion was served on the Applicant/Respondent/Respondent (hereinafter
called the Respondent) counsel on 8th September, 2023 as per the
affidavit of service commissioned on 11th September, 2023. There is
no affidavit in opposition. <o:p></o:p>The Applicants contention is
that the sentence imposed on each of them on 20th July, 2023 by this
court differently constituted should be suspended pending the determination of
their appeal before the Court of Appeal. <o:p></o:p>The judgment of this court
dated 20th July, 2023 has been attached as exhibit ‘A’. The judgment
is in respect of an application for committal for contempt which was filed by
the Respondent against the Applicants and another person on 21st March,
2022. <o:p></o:p>The application for
committal for contempt was also predicate on a motion on notice for an order for
interlocutory injunction filed by the Respondent against some of the Applicants
on 22nd October, 2021.<o:p></o:p>The Applicants have
contended in their affidavit in support that they were not served with the injunction
application. &nbsp;Therefore, their conviction
was wrong in law. Consequently, their appeal is likely to succeed. <o:p></o:p>The Court has power under Order
50 Rule 4 of C.I. 47 to suspend the execution of a sentence of a person who has
been committed for contempt. <o:p></o:p>However, the Court will do
that if there are exceptional circumstances to warrant it to be suspended.<o:p></o:p>In this case, the court
concluded that the Applicants herein were duly served, or properly became aware
of the pendency of the injunction application but engaged in acts to overreach
the application while it was pending. Therefore, they were in contempt of court.
Indeed, that is the correct position of the law. <o:p></o:p>In the case of ARYEETEY v AGBOFU II AND ANOTHER [1994-1995]
GBR 250. The Supreme Court held at page 252 as follows: “…The Applicants having been served with the motion for the interim
injunction to restrain them from carrying out any kind of installation until
the outcome of the suit was known, deliberately stole the march over the
Respondent by doing the very thing for which the motion had been brought. While
the motion for the interim injunction was pending. … Once the Applicants had
become aware of the pendency of the motion, any conduct that was likely to prejudice
a fair hearing of that motion was tantamount to contempt”.<o:p></o:p>Therefore, the issue is
whether the Applicants herein were properly served with the injunction application.
<o:p></o:p>The Respondent herein
contended in the substantive application for the contempt in which she was the
Applicant that the Respondents therein who are the Applicants herein were proper</main>